Adaptive Autonomous Robot Teams for Situational Awareness
description
Transcript of Adaptive Autonomous Robot Teams for Situational Awareness
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Adaptive Autonomous Robot Teams for Situational Awareness
Georgia Tech’s Role
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Personnel
Georgia Tech Faculty
Prof. Ron Arkin Prof. Tucker Balch Dr. Robert Burridge
GRAs Keith O’Hara Patrick Ulam Alan Wagner Matt Powers
Mobile Intelligence Inc. Dr. Doug MacKenzie
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Impact – GT Role
• Provide communication-sensitive planning and behavioral control algorithms in support of network-centric warfare, that employ valid communications models provided by BBN
• Provide an integrated mission specification system (MissionLab) spanning heterogeneous teams of UAVs and UGVs
• Demonstrate warfighter-oriented tools in three contexts: simulation, laboratory robots, and in the field
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication Sensitive Planning • Provide support for terrain models and other
communications relevant topographic features to MissionLab
• Use plans-as-resources as a basis for multiagent robotic communication control (spatial, behavioral, formations, etc.) and integrate within MissionLab
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Plans as Resources • Motivated by Payton’s work.
• A precompiled map is an enabling resource.
• Maps converted to a two dimensional gradient mesh a priori using A*.
• Robot queries “internalized plan” for directional “advice” in the form of a vector.
• Queries and advice production are near real-time.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Internalized Plan as Behavior
• The GoToMapVector assemblage controls retrieval of plan vectors from maps, and consists of the following sub-assemblages:
GetMapVector: Retrieves and injects a map vector
Wander: Inject noise Avoid Obstacles MoveToGoal: Only used in experiments of
mixed reactive/planning behavior.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Parallel Internalized Plans• Different internalized
plans can be combined by fusing individual plans.
• Base plan contains only physical objects.
• Other plans contain additional constraints.
• The robot queries advice from the most constrained plan (pessimistic).
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Serial Internalized Plans• Different internalized
plans are used one after another.
• Each plan offers situation specific advice.
• Perceptual triggers transition from only plan to another.
• Opportunity for contingency plans.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Initial Results• Additional resources in the
form of internalized plans aids team communication.
• No difference results when
using reactive behaviors vs. communication insensitive plans.
• Communication planning in serial and parallel result in significant improvement in communication.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Plans as Resources: Upcoming work
• Conduct tests on teams of real robots.
• Determine the systems localization and map accuracy requirements.
• Develop techniques for dealing with localization errors and map inaccuracies.
• Extend the planning to 3D and generalize to other space-time dimensions for multi-robot coordination
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-sensitive Team Behaviors
• Generation and testing of a new set of reactive communications preserving and recovery behaviors
• Creation of communications recovery and preserving behaviors sensitive to QoS
• Expansion of behaviors in support of line-of-sight and subterranean operations
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communications Recovery Behaviors
• Retrotraverse: Log robot’s position at regular intervals; when comms breaks, move to last N positions logged until comms recovered
• Move to Higher Ground: Use inclinometer data to guide ascent to vantage point for communications recovery
• Nearest Neighbor: Track the last known position of connected robots; if comms lost, move towards the nearest robot’s last position
• Bridging: Couple separated networks by tracking positions and moving towards location of network lesion; currently UAV behavior
• Shepherding: Search out robots that have been cut off from the network; once found, guide back (currently UAV)
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Experimental Design
Missions run on simulated Quantico map
20 trials starting at regularly spaced intervals along the western side of the map and moving to a central location on the eastern side of the map
2 UGVs moving in a line formation with 20m spacing
Recovery behaviors used in isolation of one another
Metrics: Mission Completion Rate, Recovery time
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Results
Using the Nearest Neighbor Recovery behavior approximately 50% of the trials were finished completely autonomously
Retrotraverse and Move to Higher Ground were usually not able to finish the trials autonomously by themselves and will require transitions/planning once communications recovered
Number of Trials Completed
0
11
0
18
02
8
19
02468
101214161820
Communication Sensitive Behaviors
Tri
als
Co
mp
lete
d
No Preserving, No Recovery
No Preserving, Higher Ground
No Preserving, Nearest Neighbor
No Preserving, Retrotraverse
Maintain Signal Strength, No Recovery
Maintain Signal Strength, Higher Ground
Maintain Signal Strength, Retrotraverse
Maintain Signal Strength, Nearesr Neighbor
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Results (2)
Retrotraverse results in the most rapid communications recovery of the behaviors tested.
Move to higher ground results in the slowest recovery rate, largely due to failure when the terrain was level.
Nearest Neighbor was successful in most cases, except in some situations around buildings where the attraction to the lost robot and the repulsion to the building that severed communications causes a local minima
Communications Recovery Time
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Communications Behaviors
Tim
e
No Preservation, No Recovery
No Preservation, Higher Ground
No Preservation, Retrotraverse
No Preservation, Nearest Neighbor
Maintain Signal Strength, No Recovery
Maintain Signal Strength, Higher Ground
Maintain Signal Strength, Retotraverse
Maintain Signal Strength, Nearest Neighbor
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Summary: Communications Recovery
• Retrotraverse provides the most rapid communications recovery Retrotraverse must be augmented with supplementary
behaviors or teleoperation to complete mission
• Move to Higher Ground and Nearest Neighbor perform effectively in many cases There are a number of cases where the behavior will
perform suboptimally Supplementary behaviors or a more complex behavioral
selection may further improve results
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Future Work
• Investigate means in which to activate recovery behaviors based on available perceptual features
• Integration of cognizant failure (Gat) for recovery behaviors
• Evaluate performance of recovery behaviors in the context of larger teams, increased formation size, and disparate goals
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors with Limited Memory
Value-Based One-Step Look-Ahead Uses predictions of communication quality short
distances from current position to “hill-climb” to better locations with respect to communication
Currently assumes teammates remain still when predicting communication quality to reduce complexity
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors
• Operation: Predict communication quality at locations a
small distance away using Map information Network attenuation model Teammates assumed to remain still
Create motion vector based on predicted and current communication quality
Bearing based on predicted quality Magnitude based on current quality
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors
X X
XX
(r = .89)
(r = .85)(r = .74)
(r = .68)
(r = .70)
Predicted communication qualities
Current communication quality
Resulting vector
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors
Without Look-Ahead Behavior:
Obstacle-splitting endangers communication quality
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors
With Look-Ahead Behavior:
Obstacle-splitting phenomena eliminated
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-Preserving Behaviors – 1 step
• Future work: Extend behavior to larger groups
Perform quantitative tests Compare to other communication-preserving
behaviors Identify situations where most effective
Integrate into larger scenarios
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Memoryless Communication Preserving BehaviorMaintain-Signal-Strength
• Servos on signal strength to preserve communication.
• Sum over every “connected” robot Vector_Magnitude = (T-R)/T when (T-R) > D Vector_Direction = angle to the robot
where T: Target Signal Strength, D: Signal Deadzone, R: Actual Signal strength
• Connected can be defined to mean either directly connected or connected via a multi-hop route.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Illustration of Maintain-Signal-Strength
Communication Quality Decreases
g1 g2
Communication Quality Increases
s1 s2
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication Preservation Experiments
• Mission: Each robot navigates to its goal. • Team Sizes: 2, 4, 6, and 8 • Distance separating robots: 10, 20, 40 meters • 25 random worlds
12% obstacle coverage 256 x 256 meters
• Three behaviors are compared. No communication behavior (control) MSS using positions of directly connected robots
(single-hop) MSS using all available positions (multi-hop)
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Percentage of Time as One Network
• Some communication strategy is needed to keep the network one as you increase the distances or the number of robots.
•There doesn’t seem to be a significant difference between the two variations of the behavior.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Mission Completion Time
• Both variations of the behavior add a significant amount of time to mission completion.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication Models and Fidelity
• Working with BBN to incorporate suitable communication models into MissionLab in support of both simulation and field tests
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Current Network Model Status• Models wireless communication networks in
3 dimensions.• Integrated into MissionLab • Signal Attenuation
Free-space path-loss Dependent on distance between robots, frequency of
communication band, and antennae height. Line-of-Sight Obstructions
Absolute signal attenuation. Obstructions modeled as arbitrary polygons or right cylinders
with height. Terrain map can be used which can occlude LOS.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
The Quantico Overlay From a Communications Perspective
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Next Steps in Modeling Network
• Obstructions will attenuate signal at different magnitudes. Model buildings and foliage.
• Accurate model of signal attenuation over rough terrain.
• Mimic capabilities of BBN “black-box”
• Understand how different levels of model fidelity impact multi-robot team performance.
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Communication-sensitive Mission Specification
• MissionLab is a usability-tested Mission-specification software developed under extensive DARPA funding (RTPC / UGV Demo II / TMR / UGCV / MARS / FCS-C programs)
• Using MissionLab as a basis: Adapt to incorporate air-ground communication-
sensitive command and control mechanisms Extend to support physical and simulated experiments
for objective air and ground platforms Incorporate new communication tasks and triggers
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
MissionLab’s Spatial Planner
• Incorporates Navigator Component of the AuRA architecture- A map of obstacles is read in by the system- The map is “grown” to represent configuration space- The free space is partitioned into a collection of convex “meadows” - Start and End points are selected by the user- The planner performs A* search to find an initial path- The path is improved by tautening
• Can be invoked from MissionLab’s cfgedit tool
• Creates an FSA series of waypoints
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Initial Map and Meadow Map
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Path Chosen and Formation Run
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Technology Integration
• Conduct Early-on Demonstrations on Ground Robots at GT
• Provide our Hummer Command and Control Vehicle for Team support at Objective Demonstration
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Interface Control Document
• To explicitly capture all aspects of all interconnections between project components. Communications protocols, frequencies, and timing Language and data formats Experimental communications fault injection
• To define new mission description language: CMDL+
• To detail communications-sensitive behaviors developed by project teams. Communication-preserving Communication-recovering
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
PENNPENN
ROCI
USCHelo
(Mounted in GT Hummer)
ICD
Ref: 2.3.4
BBNICD Ref: 2
.3.7
ICD
Ref: 2.3.8
VIPDispla
y
GaTech
MLab
ICD Ref: 2.3.2
USCPlaye
r
ICD Ref:2.3.1
ICD
Ref
: 2.3
.6 X
MLR
PC
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
GPS Jammer
• Supports evaluation of robot localization methods in challenging environments
• White noise centered on selected frequency
• Power: 50 to 200mw (about 50-100 meters)
• Performance to be characterized in the coming few weeks
Engineered by Daniel Walker (BORG Lab)
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Summary - Georgia Tech Contributions• Communications Sensitive Behaviors
Preserving Recovery
• Communications Planning Behaviors Plans as Resources One-step planning Team spatial waypoint planning
• Infrastructure Communications models support MissionLab as an integration vehicle ICD Development lead Hummer base station / Test equipment Scenario development
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Backup Slides
GRASPUniversity of Pennsylvania
Plans in Serial Demo explained
Seven plans are used in this demo